Votes For Prisoners

[spook]

Anarchism might very well be the only way in a society can be democratic. But to use democracy to mean anything other than people governing themselves is to make the term meaningless.

 

 

Anarchy is singularly undemocratic. (no intentional pun!)

 

Democracy is a good and fair system of ruling a society, but that does NOT mean that everyone within that society should get a say in how that society should be ruled or governed.

 

There should be qualifications, certainly being a stake holder should be one on the basis of those who pay have the say. Those that don’t pay should do as those who have to foot the bill decide, and those who break the democratically decided law should loose their say by losing their vote.

 

Maybe as part of sentencing the period of loss of suffrage should be part of the sentence handed down. Today we metaphorically have the turkeys getting a say in if and when Christmas should take place.

 

That is wrong.

[Chinahand]

 

I think that's a bit of an oversimplification and far too strong a conclusion to draw from a field that hasn't even reached the level of maturity necessary to be considered in its infancy. Science can't even find a satisfactory definition or construct basic models of consciousness or self awareness (or the unconscious mind, for that matter), never mind indentify them in terms of biological processes.

It is true that the research is in its' early stages but there is already evidence that the neuronal activity associated with specific behaviours occurs prior to a person being aware of it and supposedly making the decision. In any event, the premise that there is some sort of ethereal "homonculus person" inside which is making the decisions independently of the brains' neuronal activity appears to be untenable.

Thread derail continued...

Evil Goblin - the brain is a big, decentralized object. As you say there is no homonculus, but also I would be careful saying there is no such thing as freewill, just because our sense of being conciously aware that we've made a decision emerges from that decentralized object after we've made that decision.

 

Our freewill is a property of our brain, our sensation of conciousness is also a property of the brain - these emergent properties are massively parallel, but our sense of the world is of processes working in series. That is an illusion.

 

There is not a central area in the brain which integrates all these things into a sense of conciousness and finally "makes" a decision for us.

 

Decision potentials rather cascade through the brain bringing awareness to other parts of the brain often indirectly - exactly how noone really knows and these are difficult questions to answer and I think Terry Pratchett, as so often, sums it up well:

 

… a human mind is a great sullen lightning filled cloud of thoughts all of them occupying a finite amount of brain processing time. Finding whatever the owner thinks theyre thinking in the middle of the smog of prejudices, memories, worries, hopes and fears is almost impossible.

 

We don't know what conciousness is, let alone free will, and so I'd be really careful saying we don't have responsibility for our actions based on the experiments you are quoting.

 

A large number of distributed parts of the brain are mulling a purposive decision. Each is spread out over a large number of neurons, each brings different potentials from past firings and a different chemical environment existing in that part of the brain to the making of this decision. Some areas start firing for a certain choice, others for another, eventually the cascade for a certain choice resulting from these different results starts to reach a threshold, this can overwhelm certain areas, making them change their potential, others continue to nagg for their original decision. Once the potential reaches an ever changing threashold muscles also start to fire and movement to make the choice occurs - at about the same time conciousness realizes the brain has made a decision, but that isn't presented as a fait d'acompli, but as a thought out, deliberative process. But that is what it is, but what has undertaken the contemplation is the holistic brain, and not any one segement of it, whether concious or not.

 

Edited to add - Daniel Dennet has written alot about this sort of thing - Conciousness Explained, Freedom Evolves- though his writing style is NOT particularly easy reading!

[VinnieK]

It is true that the research is in its' early stages but there is already evidence that the neuronal activity associated with specific behaviours occurs prior to a person being aware of it and supposedly making the decision. In any event, the premise that there is some sort of ethereal "homonculus person" inside which is making the decisions independently of the brains' neuronal activity appears to be untenable.

 

Infancy is a very generous way of describing it, embryonic might be more accurate! It's by no means settled what those tests even demonstrate, not least because with the current state of science of the mind (as distinct from, if related to the science of the brain) isn't at a state where people are even sure of what is being looked for. By way of analogy, it's like trying to work out what's wrong with your car by driving it over an obstacle course, without first knowing how a car actually works.

 

The best that particular test can actually say is that given a specific instruction to carry out simple physical act like turning a dial, then the neuronal activity occurs before the conscious awareness of the participant. In the wider context of consciousness and free will this is an very artificial and limited experiment and I think most would agree that it's wrong to extrapolate so much from it: The hypothesis is vague, the necessary context and background knowledge needed to lend the result meaning and power is non-existent, and the link between observation and conclusion weak, so "appears to be untenable" is by no small measure an exaggeration - it's a neat observation, that's about it.

 

Some day it might play a minor part in a true study of consciousness (or it might not), but until then we're little closer to an answer than we were before the experiment took place.

[spook]

And where in all that nonsense is the Soul of a man or woman even considered?

 

It's the Soul that has the capacity to steer the sinful and animal nature of imperfect mankind to decency. But unless the Soul is protected and nurtured it is the satanic evil of sinful human nature that causes that same Soul to be led into sin and ultimately to the fires of eternal damnation.

 

It is the love of Jesus and accepting him as your saviour and allowing him to nurture your Soul and steer it in the paths of righteousness by following his teaching makes man not even want to sin.

 

Should prisoners, demonstratable sinners, be allowed a say in society? The very thought is disgusting.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

And I can't make the connection between someone rifling through the knickers and not being able to vote. Can I have the bit in the middle please, i.e. the explanation for why it is wrong that they should not vote?

 

But again, it really doesn't matter though if some prisoners get the vote. They will have the same say that you do, and you have very, very little. What does it matter when you can do so little with your vote.

I think this issue has been blown so far out of proportion.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

And where in all that nonsense is the Soul of a man or woman even considered?

Define what you mean by Soul and give evidence for its existence and then we'll consider it.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Anarchy is singularly undemocratic. (no intentional pun!)

 

Democracy is a good and fair system of ruling a society, but that does NOT mean that everyone within that society should get a say in how that society should be ruled or governed.

Democracy is not simply majoritarian voting. I think you mean Liberal democracy or representative democratic systems, but these systems only have democratic elements to them.

[Declan]

There's nothing Liberal about Spook's form of "democracy".

[mr blonde]

And I can't make the connection between someone rifling through the knickers and not being able to vote. Can I have the bit in the middle please, i.e. the explanation for why it is wrong that they should not vote?

 

 

If you want to re-read, my argument was not that it was wrong that they should not vote. My argument is that it is wrong that people are even considering that it is right that someone who commits a crime, going against the laws set up by our democratically ellected peers, is then able to have a say in what the laws of the land or any other related constitutional matters.

 

And the bit about the knickers, from a personal point of view, is completely valid. My girlfriend was left in such a state by the thought of someone having been in our house, going through her personal belongings, that she felt that she did not want to be there anymore. It didn't feel safe, even after having had to spend a big ammount of money on an alarm system. My argument is why should scum like that still be allowed the same social rights a the victim. They should't. End of. No matter what some liberal doo-gooders think.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

They are not your peers. Nor will such prisoners have a say in the laws of the land and other constitutional matters. They will only get a vote.

 

But I still can't make out the argument for WHY it is wrong. So what if they broken a law.

[mr blonde]

But I still can't make out the argument for WHY it is wrong. So what if they broken a law.

 

Let me guess. With regard to prison you also think TV's and Playstations for all, gym and swimming whenever they want and blowjobs on tap?

 

Prison is prison. Breaking a law sometimes results in prison. If you break a law deemed serious enough to warrant a custodial sentence then you should loose you rights to the freedoms enjoyed by people who have not broken the law. Once released, those rights then return.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Why should you? You haven't really explained anything. Imprisoning people = loss of freedom. But rights are another matter.

[spook]

Why should you? You haven't really explained anything. Imprisoning people = loss of freedom. But rights are another matter.

 

A person who has broken the democratically agreed law of the society in which they find themselves have the rights that society deems appropriate to extend to them as criminals. No more, and no less.

 

Today under the present law they have the right not to be tortured, not to be put to death, to be provided with the essentials of life, and in MY opinion there should be nothing more than that though sadly such is not the case.

 

What’s more on release from incarceration all rights that law abiding citizens have should not automatically be returned to them but at the time of sentencing the sentencing authority should be able to set out which rights should be withheld and for how long.

 

In addition to that withdrawing so called human rights should be a sentencing option even where incarceration is not involved up to and including the withholding of suffrage. One right that should not be a right anyway would be the right to be issued with or to continue to hold a passport.

 

People who break the law have shown moral turpitude, or an unwillingness to abide by the democratically decided laws under which we all live. Such people should not be seen as law abiding citizens, for they are patently not, and should on that basis not receive all the benefits citizenship brings.

[mr blonde]

But prison isn't, or shouldn't, be just about a loss of freedom. It should also be about rehabilitation yes but one of its purposes should to be a deterant against commiting a crime. If prison is no longer allowed to deny the convicted anything then what purpose would it serve.

 

And to turn your question around, what reason have you come up with to say that they should still be allowed to vote?

[starwash.im]

Maybe drivers who break the speed limit should be excluded too ? And litter droppers ? They eschew their voting rights the minute the chewing gum hits the floor, if you ask me.

 

And don't get me started on drunks ...

 

Yoda ...